You'll only know what the government wants you to

YOU won't get a better illustration of the pathetic state of freedom of information law, and the timid way it is administered, than we got this week courtesy of Alexander Downer.

In answer to a question from Labor's Kelvin Thomson, Downer told Parliament he was unaware of any imports of oil in breach of UN sanctions on Iraq or of Australian customs regulations.

After a quiet word from his department, Downer returned to the chamber to explain this was wrong and in fact the Federal Police were investigating a possible breach.

When the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, was quizzed hours later about the same issue, he told a parliamentary committee that in fact there were half a dozen other police investigations under way into alleged breaches of the UN sanctions.

These investigations have been under way since early this year, at the same time the Cole inquiry has been investigating alleged breaches by AWB and others in Iraq.

Whether Cole knew about these alleged breaches is not clear, but his surgically drafted terms of reference left no room for him to investigate them even if he wanted to.

But get this. The 7.30 Report's political editor, Michael Brissenden, asked for all the relevant documents in a freedom-of-information request to the Customs Service and another to Fremantle Ports, back in May. Brissenden had a good tip and asked for specific documents, which is usually a big help. But not this time.

Customs Service's director of tariff policy, John Potter, said there were 15 documents and he exempted them all. Every word. It was "not in the public interest to disclose them", he said.

Potter even refused to say what the documents were or give a reason For refusing to disclose them. To do so "would itself reveal exempt material".

See how it works? Downer can stand up in Parliament and reveal there's a federal police inquiry going on, and Keelty can admit there are seven inquiries all up, but if you make a freedom-of-information request on an issue of substance and sensitivity you get nothing, just a blanket claim that releasing the material is not in the public interest.

Some of the material might be truly sensitive, but there can be no grounds to exempt the lot.

What happened to Brissenden will not surprise Thomson. He put in nine freedom-of-information requests to the trade department earlier this year and was frustrated at every turn. An intern on his staff, Michal Alhadeff, found it so bizarre she wrote a clinical summary of the experience.

LATEST COMMENTS

Thanks for this page, it's shocking but unfortunatly not suprising. All the goverment need do now is offically redefine the words "Public" and "Freedom" and they'll never have another worry in the world, ever.
Until then, they look pretty crooked dont they!

Posted by: thierry fossemalle on November 3, 2006 11:01 PM

I would like to hear how Mr Thomson's party will amend the FOI Act should it be elected next year? Let us have the detail, please.

It has supported the goverment on some very draconian laws in the name of "terrorism" without a thought as to how they affect democracy or natural justice for ordinary law abiding people.

Posted by: keenobserver on November 4, 2006 6:53 AM

"and he grinned the ancient defiance upon which all freedom, ultimately, rests." James A Michener, 'Tales of the South Pacific'.

That would appear to apply to the John Howard gang now.

Will we, the people, learn to grin again and liberate our freedom from the cage of fear in which it withers?

Kim Peart
Tasmania

Posted by: Kim Peart on November 4, 2006 9:00 AM

If Labour has the courage to campaign on and implement this then who would vote against them.

Posted by: JJ on November 4, 2006 9:31 AM

These weasel words that are so often bandied around by the Howard Government will surely one day come back ,hopefully,to destroy them.

Its been increasingly obvious for a long time that what's considered to be in "The Public Interest" or not in "The Public Interest" has nothing to do with whether the public might be interested in it or not and all to do with political expediency for John Howard and whether his, or his Ministers have gotten their chains of plausible deniability set up so as to avoid having to answer truthfully and accountably to Parliament (and therefore ,the Public they were put there to serve) or to commissions set up to investigate their possible criminal or treacherous acts.
It is also blatantly obvious that they have the Public Servants in their respective departments well and truly stitched up and subservient to their every whim and caprice and heavy handed Ministerial Directives to keep any information considered sensitive or politically embarrassing out of the Public eye by whatever means or lies necessary.

The litany of scandalous lies told by this Government during its term in office is a disgrace to Australia and her citizens.

But it would seem Howard and his minions have no shame when it comes to keeping their political fortunes alive ,their financial backers appeased and safe, their nefarious and underhand dealings with a regime they declare as "evil" and go to war against whilst trading with them out the back door and their all-the-way with whatever babbling propaganda is emanating from Washington this week and will resort to basically any stunt,lie or political trick to survive.

And still some people and political commentators admire for them this and others continue to believe and trust in them.

It makes me wonder just what its going to take for the people of Australia to wake up to to this Government's continued deliberate mismanagement,concealment and distortion of the facts and its "cutting and running" from any and all accountability in a time when we need , more than ever, people in Parliament and public office who have the backbone, intelligence and moral fortitude to face up to the ever increasing problems we are facing today and make decisions and be held accountable for them.

Posted by: Stephen F on November 4, 2006 10:38 AM

I remember going to England in 1998 and meeting a guy so impressed by our FOI act, mainly because the UK didn't have one. One of many lawyers lobbying for change, he thought Australia's FOI act was a perfect model. How wrong he could be.

The question I'd like to ask is, what is the difference between a government like ours that denies attempts to question its accountability using censorship and say that of other dictatorships?

The answer would be the degree of force used to maintian its power. One uses legislitave coercion, the other uses military intimidation. If the effect is the same, the hinderance of a questioning public, can either claim to be more ethically legitimate than the other?

Sure, people can walk freely here. I can express my feelings & thoughts, but are we just sitting at the top of a slippery slope? And if so where will it lead?

Posted by: spleen on November 4, 2006 10:39 AM

Hey Matt,

I would like to know more about the recent incident of an offshore equity firm CVC buying 50% of PBL illegally according to regulations.

I'd like to know why "NOTHING" is being done by the government.

What happened to it?

I thought it was a HUGE issue, and yet theres little to no follow up.

How did PBL make something illegal ...legal?

Posted by: jim on November 4, 2006 10:43 AM

"Some of the material might be truly sensitive, but there can be no grounds to exempt the lot."

No legal grounds .. Aus government is playing some strange games lately and Howard fancies himself as some type of Elder Statesman but I note that he appears to be a master of deception and that is his guise ,,

IMHO if the AWB (not the government .. the wheat board ..) sold wheat for gold (that is their job folks - selling wheat) to starving iraqis (so they could feed themselves and their children) and the UN in turn wants to punish someone or threaten sanctions on Australia for that then obviously there is something real wrong and people do need to know so we can catch these sneaky globalists out with their thieving, cheating and war-mongering ways. Obviously the job of selling wheat to Iraq was supposedly reserved for America only so as to suck up Iraqi Oil for Food program oil as mandated by the United Nations at that time.

The food sanctions against Iraq were imposed by the United Nations and it was the US who were doing the majority of the Oil for Food program "trading" with Iraq even though Saddam Hussien would not have wanted anything to do with trading with the United States. Thus the US get lots and lots of iraqi OIL from the new "trading agreement" with Iraq .. lol .. (I am talking about the aftermath of the (gulf War part 1) here) ..

The situation now in Iraq (Gulf War part 2) is far worse and the globalists have achieved all their goals there (already)(Iraq will be used as a Coalition of the Willing military staging ground (under US military control) for many years to come so as to assure their military influence in that region of the middle East.

Also the infastructure is now in place to pump the bulk of the $20Trillion:US in Iraqi Oil across to Israel (over the next 15-20 years) so that they can distribute it into the Global oil Markets to be sold for US dollars .. not Euros .. wake up people .. someone else was after that truckload of gold the AWB got paid for the wheat and simply wanted to steal our deal .. simply? .. no .. obviously political elements within Iraq wanted our wheat and not US wheat .. I give the boys at the AWB a wave and say well done boys .. stick it up them filthy globalists wherever possible .. I point out that the US have been stealing our wheat deals by using this embargo BS as an excuse for some time and with a variety of countries .. they are so transparent .. the people attempting price fixing in the International Wheat Market are thieves and tyrants, I can't be any clearer than that and in my opinion the AWB's good reputation is well and truely intact ..

Posted by: barin on November 4, 2006 10:52 AM

Apart from voting, what can we do about this issue? Is there an organised movement?

Posted by: George G on November 4, 2006 12:52 PM

That last email ia beauty. It implies a sort of cover upthat is transparent and relegated to unread blogs.This blog site is also making me feel nervous for other email writers sake i just wonder if any gold has gone missing from this country iraq u.s.a And would israeli citizens wait for usa. interests when they are dealong with dirty money why work with americans with that. or is it directly recycled back to direct american s in israel as u.s.a. israeli oil corps.Personally those involed dont seem in essence to be able to stick it up anyone. Although i cannot see that cole and howard are without those skills of stating nothing whilst hold them in continuous contempt,with a longer view that achieves which means copping on the chin keeping silent whilst a russian roulette plays againstthem. the shot would make life more comfortable, but the gunmen is like the chambers unfathomable except if your hearing is supernormal. how australia got into this buck buck game of bloodsuckers is the real problem. my mind wasnt alone on bloodsucking buck bucks. howard is playing a dangerous game generally now but those of his 11 that arent his colleagues he has to make them play according to australian needs. is the cole enquiry for australians or for truth it cannot be for a american truth, then it takes place for some liars. the liars however be unreproachable and quite dignified. a pact between arabs and jews, we embarass ourselves by pursuing justice americans try to take advantage and the last moment howard frightens bush for very good reasons. the old sly cunning rat is playing it straight .hicks is thesymbol that howard uses to say good bye george,we cannot eat democrats shit to.

Posted by: philip travers on November 4, 2006 1:59 PM

Why not run a public vote in the newspaper?

I'm sure the results would be outstandingly in favour of releasing the docs.
If you can prove the public wants to see the documents wouldn't it place some pressure on the govt? I'm sure they'd say t's priviledged info or whatever but they'd certainly be shamed and might even feel the need to defend the current system of FOI. Surely a public vote would stir dissent among the people. At least more people would be aware of the situation and more awareness = pressure to change.

Posted by: Emma on November 4, 2006 2:04 PM

Thanks for this article. Only a government who are so cinical about public scrutiny can act in this way. They are hidding and scared. So corruption is the only conclusion I can come to But this should not be tollerated. The only problem is that I remember the Opposition doing the same. Well I guess we'll have to find others to vote for. Lets get good independants into politics. People with respect not contemt for the public. Those who will pass laws that apply in all situations, not just convenient ones.

Posted by: Linda Hamilto on November 4, 2006 2:20 PM

Yeah.... ummm ....but

Notwithstanding my scepticism about the worth of FOI, it is difficult to disagree that FOI sometimes looks like it is stacked against the punter. And, of all punters, Kelvin Thomson (a seriously smart man with a relevant Parliamentary role) has a better right than most to access and to proper decisions. With great respect to other FOI applicants, he impresses as someone who could read and really understand the material, including its sensitivity. So, why doesn't he get the stuff or a god reason he can't have it?

The reason is pretty simple. Most of the time in the recent past, Government has not controlled the Senate. If something was refused, a demand for tabling could be made and the Senate and its committee processes were useful mechanisms to test the reasonableness of refusals. At present, the Government owns the Senate - if Barnaby throws a wobbly and sticks to his guns, Steve Fielding will link up and save the Libs' bacon. The main reason the Senate is in this deplorable state is that the ALP helped Fielding to get elected when they could probably have helped a Green. It is their own fault.

The probability of disclosure through the Senate processes is what will force agencies and Ministers to take a more considered view. The loading against the applicant would still be there and given AAT-proof conclusive certificates and Ombudsman-proof Ministerial decisions, it will probably stay there but be used less often.

I'm glad to see the acknowledgment that some stuff might genuinely be sensitive. The policy questions are where one draws the line and whether anyone should get to act as linesman to avoid claims by government that cross it.

Posted by: MajorCynic on November 4, 2006 3:13 PM

Who takes your money, then lies directly to you on a regular basis, obscures the truth in others, says one thing and does another, ignores most of your requests and manipulates the system to their benefit.

Politicians.

And who lets them do it without protesting?

Most of us.

Posted by: Ray on November 4, 2006 3:42 PM

F.O.I I wonder if the Howard Government had any recollection of receiving any information. It was Downer who in fact previously had said there was a Federal Police Enquiry. But I would be surprised if there was any information to investigate but you can be sure of one thing, we lost the wheat contract.

So obviously there is some type of information that is harming Australia's integrity that the public need to vote on.

Have a Nice Day,
Michael

Posted by: Michael on November 4, 2006 4:49 PM

After Alexander Downer professed, on national television, not to know that the TNI had any involvement in the actions of the 'militias' in East Timor, I'm surprised anyone expects Alexander Downer to provide an accurate answer.

Whether he was lying or was ignorant is irrelevant. (I'm not sure which is worse.)

Posted by: andrew on November 4, 2006 6:45 PM

To use another howard cliche (it's become a common noun now) "its not a hanging offence". Why, if it were, a landslide majority would evaporate overnight.

Posted by: perry clark on November 4, 2006 6:52 PM

it wont be long before Downer claims his involvement in this latest rort is 'preposterous'

he loves that word, it's like when the guy at the end of Scooby Doo gets found out by the gang he always says "that's Preposterous" ...

it is an odd choice though, because the possibility that a Federal Minister might have had knowledge of the goings on in his own department is not exactly out of the ordinary. if he didnt know he didnt know, but it's not 'preposterous'

Posted by: Doctor Who on November 4, 2006 7:26 PM

This is very interesting and in noways a surprise. Unfortunately, the simple fact is that the general public are either ignorant, don't care or are generally apathetic to who the hell is in government. They are easily swayed by media, spin and agendas put forth by the Howard government. The number of times I've heard people try to explain why they like Howard and not come up with any logical argument is simply amazing. That it would at times boils down to what a candidate's "personality" is like is an absolute joke. How about what the hell stand for? If that was the bottom line then Australia would be a very different country that it is now. This current government is only interested in staying in power and furthering its own interests, not the public's.

Posted by: H on November 4, 2006 8:27 PM

spleen - agree totally.
barin - take a chill pill man!!!!
George G - voting is the only way....but the bastards will still probaby get back in.

Posted by: michael on November 4, 2006 10:46 PM

I've tried FOI on a complaint I made and was told "it's not for public knowledge".

The file wouldn't have existed had I not made the complaint and wanted to know that the person had been officially reprimanded.

80 pages, 70 exempt, 10 I already had (were e-mails).

Gotta love FOI

Posted by: nyssa76 on November 4, 2006 11:04 PM

Not in the Public Interest? What if the public are interested in what the government is doing. Heck their salaries and lerks and perks are paid for via our taxes but we're not to know what they are doing. What fools voted them in? They seem to think that the less we know the higher their chances of being re-elected. That says something in itself.

Posted by: Mary on November 4, 2006 11:56 PM

JJ,

I agree.

I rang Kim Beazley's office last week to ask about Freedom of Information abuse and labour's policy because in victoria Bracks is just as secretive as Downer.

To my surprise, they sent me their private member's bill from October to reform FOI and remove the power for ministers to hide things. They are serious but are trying to keep it quite.

The labour states keep huge secrets and so the federal labour were very quite about this reform!

Posted by: Jill on November 5, 2006 1:32 PM

It's almost literally like living in a world where they tell you black is white when Freedom of Information = Withholding of information.

I suggest we all withhold our personal information from the government, especially our personal incomes.

It's clearly not in our best interests for the government to know it, since they treat us so poorly. So let's see how they feel when the shoe is on the other foot.

Posted by: Ray on November 5, 2006 2:12 PM

Hehe! "Not in the public interest" does not mean "Australians shouldn't know what their government is up to". It means "if this information was in the public domain, it would turn international opinion against Australian interests". This is not a good excuse to keep things secret that really have no right to be secret. But this is the basis on which public servants have to make decisions about FOI access. I think, Michael, this is why and how the system is biased against disclosure in a lot of cases.

Presumably, nyssa76 complained to someone about the actions of an official. Experience suggests there would be some kind of inquiry and some kind of outcome. If the complaint was found to have substance, that outcome might include something specific for the individual official - and it might be a sacking, a demotion, an involuntary move, a financial penalty, a reprimand. Whatever.

There is a serious question about what nyssa76 gets to be told. And I don't know the answer, beyond the no-brainer (in most cases) of saying that she should be told her complaint was substantiated or not. Perhaps the official did wrong, but did it for a good reason (say, he or she had been told to do just what was done) or perhaps he or she made an error judgment in a case for which training had not prepared him or her. This is pretty harmless and not many would object.

Perhaps the official genuinely did something wrong. If so, what happens to the employee is a matter for the official and his/her employer (and that's the agency head, not the public at large or any member of it). It is arguable that the complainant has no real need or right to know that (a) the official was let off lightly because he or she was dealing with a personal illness and tragedy at the time, (b) the official was also pinged for a dozen similar matters and got a really substantial penalty because of all of them, not just the complainant's or (c) whatever other twist one wants to throw in.

While I'm sure nyssa76 is a model of restraint and reason, not everyone is, and there is no obvious reason to trash someone's privacy just to satisfy someone else's curiosity. Experience suggests some complainants will harass the official, and some will run campaigns of vilification that go beyond anything reasonable. There's a balancing act in deciding whether openness (and the risk of destroying someone for a single mistake) is better than being cautious in cases where there is no malice.

Officials are individuals. They are entitled to privacy of their personal information, and that includes some or all of the stuff that relates to their employment. If I complain about a shop assistant in Colesworth's, I don't expect to be given a blow by blow account of his or her future career. It should be no different if I happen to own scads of Colesworths shares. Is the situation identified by nyssa76 really any different, just because a person is employed by an agency on behalf of the public.

Gee, it's a hard one.

Posted by: MajorCynic on November 5, 2006 8:18 PM

Hi Matthew,
I donot know the full details,But Its an Interesting situation with the FOI into Customs Service's. And the decision and determination made by the director of tariff policy Mr John Potter. He is obligated to give a full statement of reasons under the Act on the refusal to disclose these 15 documents captured in the FOI request.
This is a clear deemed refusal on the FOI application to the Customs Service's failing to provide a full statement of reasons in its decsions.
Has the applicant requested a full schedule for the 15 documents blacked out that have been catpured by the FOI ? Has there been an internal review of this decsion made ?. Maybe the 15 blacked out documents needs an external review by the AAT?.
Note ?.If the department or agency refuses to comply with any FOI request it is classified as a deemed refusal. (non compliance ).
I would like to refer to the public interest this is a concept that is fundamental to a representative democratic system of government and to good public administration.

However, this commonly used concept is, in practice, particularly complex, and presents two major obstacles to governments and their public officials acting in the public interest:

? firstly, while it is one of the most used terms in the lexicon of public administration, it is arguably the least defined and least understood ? few public officials would have any clear idea what the term actually means and what its ramifications are in practice.

? secondly, identifying or determining the appropriate public interest in any particular case is often no easy task - as Lyndon B Johnson once said: ?Doing what?s right isn?t the problem. It knowing what?s right?.

I refer to The concept ? acting in the public interest:
The over-arching obligation on public officials
Public officials have an over-arching obligation to act in the public interest. They must perform their official functions and duties, and exercise any discretionary powers, in ways that promote the public interest that is applicable to their official functions. The primary purpose of non-elected public officials is to serve. Serving the public interest is one of the four dimensions of this primary purpose.

In Neat Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd, the applicant sought relief under the ADJR Act in relation to the refusal by AWB (International) Limited to approve certain export transactions proposed by it which resulted in the Wheat Export Authority refusing its consent. The AWB is the privatised version of the former Australian Wheat Board, effectively a monopolist wheat purchaser and exporter. Its monopoly is established by the Wheat Marketing Act 1989.

The prima face evidence that the AWB has acted in an ultra vires to the legislation (meaning beyond legally defined authority) Abuse of power, Bad faith, improper purpose, Manifest unreasonableness Lack of proportionality, Failure to exercise power As this has been established there can be no exemptions claimed on legal professional privileged documents as per the following;
In Bullivant v Attorney-General for Victoria, which was a case of fraud, the Earl of Halsbury LC said: "you must have some definite charge either by way of allegation or affidavit or what not". In O'Rourke v Darbishire Viscount Finlay said: "there must be, in order to get rid of privilege, not merely an allegation ... of a fraud, but there must be something to give colour to the charge". That test was accepted in Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney by Gibbs CJ, with whom Mason and Brennan JJ agreed. Gibbs CJ added the further words of Viscount Finlay:
"The statement [ie the allegation of fraud] must be made in clear and definite terms, and there must further be some prima facie evidence that it has some foundation in fact ... The Court will exercise its discretion, not merely as to the terms in which the allegation is made, but also as to the surrounding circumstances, for the purpose of seeing whether the charge is made honestly and with sufficient probability of its truth to make it right to disallow the privilege of professional communications."
All Governments are obligated under legislation and RULE OF LAW to be accountable and transparent as to the public funding , and private partnerships such as (PPPs) as to the administration and the accountability of public authorities. ( Public Accountability and transparency in now a necessity as to the ?privatisation of the business of government ? which has resulted in private bodies occupying public roles and wielding what are, in effect, public powers and statutory authority )

The FOI gives that right it is in a affect a democratic tool to shine light on the policy and the administration of the government of the day. The FOI is a form of the discovery process. e.g.,(subpoena, notice to produce, ,Parliament standing orders call for papers )

The people have right to know what its government is doing with public funds which is all in the public interest.

This information must be made available It is the private business person that the citizen now meets and deals with in ever increasing areas, not the public servant. Of course, there is a wide spectrum of ways in which private actors are involved in the delivery of what were formerly government functions.

The function of the Courts, Tribunals and Commissions of Inquiry, should be to ensure that all bodies ? private or otherwise ? that perform public functions do so in accordance with the Rule law.

AWB Official s, Public Servants Politicians, and agents have all represented the Australia and Wheat Producers as to the marketing , and all transactions and all contracts entered and prepared by this Authority.

Where is the accountability of the Public Servants, Politicians, and agents to the Australian producers and the People of this Country.

This issue of the AWB scandal is in the Australian Nation Interest. This should be sufficient criteria as to the public interest to provide the override provision to release all documents.

He who profits by a crime commits Seneca, 4 nc.?? AD. 65 Medea, 1st century
He who does not prevent a crime when he can encourages it.Seneca, 4 nc.? ?A.D. 65 Troades, 1st century
He who helps the guilty shares the crime. Publilius Syrus, Latin writer Senrentiae, c.43 B.C.
Those who those who do consent to the act and it shall be equally punished.Sir Edward Coke, 1552-1634
Robert Cianfrano

Posted by: Robert Cianfrano on November 6, 2006 4:17 AM

I have worked for 15 years in both Commonwealth and State public services, and under both sides of politics. FOI is a joke, but actually because people think it gives them a right to everything. The reality is that if the frivolous and all-encompassing requests (ie. most) were granted, the advice from pubic servants wold be severely compromised and/or never documented appropriately. In effect the decision making would be worse rather than more "accountable".

Posted by: Bill on November 6, 2006 3:18 PM

Is Australia endorses Saddam's execution do you think that will adversely effected our dealings with other dodgy despots?

If so we could be in real trouble

If something documenting illegal activity is withheld under the banner of being in the national interest and this is latter proven to be false, can anyone be persecuted for this if their acts where deliberate and for personal gain?

Posted by: HIM on November 6, 2006 4:13 PM

So what is the real story on our 'dependency' on petrol and the lack of alternative fuel/technologies in the short term?

Posted by: mark on November 6, 2006 4:23 PM

I cannot agree with MajorCynic’s comparison of a public official with an employee of Colesworths. The Colesworths’ employee does not have the power or influence over our lives as does the public official. The Colesworths’ employee does not interpret and administer the laws under which we are required live.

Perhaps nyssa76 resorted to FOI in the absence of any explanation or apology (if appropriate). FOI applications are often generated by the applicant’s need to understand a particular action or process of the agency. Personal information relating to the public official does not need to be given for an explanation or apology. In the case of FOI, any personal information relating to the public official can be blocked from the document/s prior to release. Though, it should be remembered that the action of a public official carrying out his/her duties is not personal information.

What if the official complained of, proceeds to document false statements in relation to the complainant? The complainant is entitled to that information and, as the FOI Act provides, to seek amendment of any misleading or incorrect information. In the case of public agencies, it is only wise to correct any personal misinformation on government records.

The investigation process itself is not personal to the public official. Maybe, if the agency included the complainant in the process, there would be understanding and no need for FOI.

If a public official has made a human error and it is admitted as such, it is most unlikely that the official would be vilified. If the public official acted illegally or with malice, then the complainant should be advised that the public official was wrong and will be dealt with appropriately. The complainant does not necessarily want to know what that reprimand will entail. I suspect that in most cases the complainant only seeks acknowledgement that the decision or action was incorrect, and an apology can go a long way.

I agree with MajorCynic in that a person’s privacy, whether it be that of the public official or a member of the public, must be afforded the utmost protection in all circumstances.

Posted by: keenobserver on November 6, 2006 7:25 PM

philip travers" "Personally those involed dont seem in essence to be able to stick it up anyone"

Yeah you are right. I am sure we will end up punishing the wrongdoer and will get our knuckles rapped and probably take a hit in the Wheat Bowl so to speak .. this wheat issue was the first thing that opened my eyes to globalist market rigging when they stole our wheat deal with Russia many years earlier by stopping us trading via food sanctions against Russia because they were trying kick the talibans Ass in Afghanistan back in about 1980 so when I saw the same thing happen a few times and heard that it was hurting our wheat industry I kinda thought that America wasn't a very good Allie to Australia after all.

Posted by: barin on November 6, 2006 10:27 PM

I suspect I agree more than disagree with keenobserver. We both value the privacy of everyone (on which subject, bloggees should contribute to the review of the Commonwealth Privacy Act by the ALRC). And we both agree the complainant does not need to know chapter and verse about what happened next, and why. Of course the complainant should be told as much as possible about the interaction that led to the complaint.

On the issue of disagreement (Colesworths/Government), I have to disagree. Over the last 20 or so years, there has been a growing convergence between the two sectors. Government outsourcing to the private sector now accounts for massive expenditure - and a lot of the programs outsourced involve interaction with the public of the kind that can lead to complaint. (The relative roles of a Job Network provider and a Centrelink staff member in imposing a penalty on an unemployed person would be a good example, as would care provision to a disabled veteran).

Employment conditions are increasingly aligned (in fact, public servants are pressured to go on AWAs by some agencies). Conceptually, I can see little difference between what is done by, say, a bank teller and someone on a Centrelink counter and between the Tax Office helpline and my ISP - but anyone with whom one deals, public or private, has the potential to make the interaction good or bad. There is not a lot of difference between industry regulation and complaint systems between the two sectors. Even the humble Colesworth's checkout guy is dealing with the public and administering corporate policies in the same way as many officials administering the law.

Posted by: MajorCynic on November 7, 2006 9:24 AM

MajorCynic, I will concede to your point on GBEs. I believe that, should our governments ever forget themselves long enough to review FOI legislation, this is an area for review.

However, while we may have an expectation of a particular level of service expected of the Colesworth employee, if that service is not provided we still have the option of taking our business to Joe Bloggs around the corner. In the case of government, that option is not available.

Thanks for the thought provoking input.

Posted by: keenobserver on November 7, 2006 2:00 PM

Dear Matthew,

I agree with the issues raised by Robert Cianfrano on this issue.

Just for the record 25 years ago, Federal and State governments administered many more services and owned much infrastructure and assets for the general public such as, e.g. ; banks, insurance companies, Energy providers, toll ways , Telco?s, airlines, public transport rail and rolling stock etc .

In the last 20 years all governments have been selling the back yard off due to economic rationalism policies implemented.

Both parties? (liberal and labour ) have embraced and implemented privatization policies dissolving and amending legislation to sell of the back yard and further give public powers and statutory powers to private enterprise.

Where is the accountability and transparency as to the sales of public assets and services, public funds?

Where is the accountability to the on going government funding, disappearing down a black hole into private enterprise and transferred to overseas conglomerates?

Accountability and transparency in now a necessity as to issues such as of privatization of the business of government going private partnerships such as (PPPs). This has resulted in private bodies occupying public roles and wielding what are, in effect, public powers and Statutory Powers.

Where is the accountability of the business of government selling and transferring pubic assets and services to private partnerships? E.g. RTA closing off the pubic roads in Sydney for the cross city tunnel? Toll way fees? Closing of schools? Etc.Etc.

Colin

Posted by: Colin Saggers on November 8, 2006 10:25 AM

Dear Matthew,

I agree with the issues raised by Robert Cianfrano on this issue.

Just for the record 25 years ago, Federal and State governments administered many more services and owned much infrastructure and assets for the general public such as, e.g. ; banks, insurance companies, Energy providers, toll ways , Telco?s, airlines, public transport rail and rolling stock etc .

In the last 20 years all governments have been selling the back yard off due to economic rationalism policies implemented.

Both parties? (liberal and labour ) have embraced and implemented privatization policies dissolving and amending legislation to sell of the back yard and further give public powers and statutory powers to private enterprise.

Where is the accountability and transparency as to the sales of public assets and services, public funds?

Where is the accountability to the on going government funding, disappearing down a black hole into private enterprise and transferred to overseas conglomerates?

Accountability and transparency in now a necessity as to issues such as of privatization of the business of government going private partnerships such as (PPPs). This has resulted in private bodies occupying public roles and wielding what are, in effect, public powers and Statutory Powers.

Where is the accountability of the business of government selling and transferring pubic assets and services to private partnerships? E.g. RTA closing off the pubic roads in Sydney for the cross city tunnel? Toll way fees? Closing of schools? Etc.Etc.

Colin

Posted by: Colin Saggers on November 8, 2006 10:26 AM

Unfortunetly we trusted our politicians far too long and the public has accepted their criminal behaviour as politicans right.The country is in serious trouble and the citizens are not to be informed. I sometimes think all the figures from the govt.are just make up figures so that they could paint a rosy picture of Australia. A lot of people believe this country is getting worst. They fear about their future but what can they do??? They just hope for the best,and they leave the govt. out of their lives because they know our politicians are just there for decoration in parliament. They are useless people who betrayed their own citizens. Australians are sick of them and they just give up on them. It is so sad to see a beautiful country ruined by those in canberra.How do you fight against this "mafia"

Posted by: ronnie on November 9, 2006 11:51 PM

Australian citizen need to change their thinking eg. The public, under the leadership of a Government.

We, the citizens are the employer. Government members are employees, to manage our affairs, Not to control us.

Public servants are suppose to serve the public's needs, not obstruct for the benefit of Government.

Posted by: Angie on November 24, 2006 1:11 AM

The simplistic version is that western governments are corporate playthings .They hate democracy and an example of this is the NON working FOI Laws. Commercial in Confidence,not in the public interest etc,ec. They only show interest in democracy when it is election time. Then they flood us with advertising drown out all opposing voices and keep the media on a tight monetary and literal leash. Advertising keeps Sugar water (Coke) and cardboard meat (Maccas) at the top of the pile.You will buy any -hit if it looks good on TV. We need a new third political force...a Citizens Party which is built on accountability. A Government which is open for the public's benefit and scrutiny.

Posted by: st911 on December 7, 2006 11:18 PM

Thank you for Alhadeff's report - it is fascinating - but please remember relating to other Blogs - Public Servants are a thing of the past. All Contracts signed by those wishing to join the Government staff, cite that their 'employment' criteria is that they have a 'responsibility and duty of care' to the Minister and only the Minister. (Tasmania State Government is the exception).
The Public purse pays their wages, without their loyalties nor duty of care.

Many of my friends who are within the Public sector are deeply disturbed by this as they say it has and does open the way to a 'conflict of interest'.